3 ms·
In short: we’re closer to clever statistical predictions than to genuine intelligence. Paradoxically, this sounds like LLMs have a better grasp of LLMs than ma
by jqpabc123 2y ago
In short: we’re closer to clever statistical predictions than to genuine intelligence.
Paradoxically, this sounds like LLMs have a better grasp of LLMs than many humans do.
- drillsteps5 2y agoIt's only paradoxical if you think that artificial neural networks can "have grasp" on things. It simply statistically determines which words need to appear in which order based on hundreds and thousands of works written by and selected by humans, in this case artificial intelligence researchers and practitioners (which indeed do have good grasp on these things). Notice how in the response humans are referred as "we" because that's what was in the articles the ANN was trained on.
- jqpabc123 2y agoYes, it simply agreed with the assertions being made. Given contradictory input, it may well do the same. Bottom line: Results can be coerced. There are no guarantees with regard to output. It displays remarkable language skill --- as long as the substance doesn't really matter. The most astounding aspect is the number of supposedly intelligent, technical leaders who readily accept this as "intelligence".